I have experienced ineffective central governments in small doses and it was not pretty. Despite the constant refrain from the Grover Norquist and Tea Party types, life without taxes is solitary, poor, brutish, and short. Oh yeah, and it is manifestly unfair. For all the problems our government may (or may not) have, our government generally makes commercial transactions smooth, predictable, and fair.
Several years ago I took a trip to Laos and Thailand with my wife and some of my in-laws, all of whom were born in Laos and emigrated to the U.S. after communists took over the Lao state. One of the most interesting aspects of the trip was shopping because of the difference between shopping in the U.S. or other developed countries to which I have been. Most noteworthy is the lack of predictability in basic transactions.
In both Thailand and Laos we shopped mostly in markets, though we did go to a couple of westernized malls and department stores. Here is what I found at the malls and department stores: prices were higher but shopping was far more efficient. You found something you wanted, it had a price tag, you took it to a cashier, and you paid the listed price. Generally, the merchandise appeared to be what it was purported to be. For example, if you purchased a Nike soccer shirt it appeared to be a Nike soccer shirt in terms of quality and design. Thus, if one purchased an Arsenal jersey it was for all intents and purposes the same Arsenal jersey one would get at any soccer store in the U.S. The price was also similar.
The experience at the markets was entirely different. I looked at a handful of jerseys at one of Bangkok's famous night markets, including an Arsenal jersey. This was during The Invincibles season at Arsenal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003%E2%80%9304_Arsenal_F.C._season I urge any soccer fans to check out footage of The Invincibles at Arsenal. Like Ajax and Holland in the early 1970's before them and Barcelona in 2010-2011, The Invincibles were not only astonishingly good, they also played the most aesthetically beautiful soccer. In any case, I checked out a jersey and was quoted a price, which wasn't marked on the jersey. I did a little negotiation and the price dropped 10 baht or so. I handled the jersey and it was clear from the construction that despite bearing the famous swoosh strip the jersey was a knock off. I mentioned the jersey to my wife and she took a crack at it. She was quoted an initial price that was lower than my negotiated price. She was able to knock off a few baht through negotiating. We were with my future sister-in-law, who was a Bangkok resident, and she told us that she could get it for even less, about half of the original price quoted to me. She said she would have to negotiate alone outside of our presence to get the best price because the vendor would jack up the price if they knew a falang (or white person) was ultimately going to purchase it.
This is how the markets work: there is one price for falang, there is another price for non-Thai Asians (excluding Japanese who actually have to pay the highest prices), and yet another price for native Thais. In order to get the best price, shoppers have to dicker with the vendor. While some people may find the act of dickering for products enjoyable, this is how nearly everything is purchased from markets. The process is hopelessly inefficient if one shops for the majority of products at markets. In addition, the actual product is likely to be a counterfeit version of what one actually intends to purchase. Obviously, this is not fair to the manufacturers of the original product and deprives the original manufacturer of income that would otherwise be theirs.
Why can this happen? In large part the market transactions can occur because the government does not actively police the retail market. I am sure Thailand has laws prohibiting the sale of counterfeit products, but the laws do little good because no one enforces them. I can only imagine the outcry that would occur in this country if such markets were allowed to flourish unchecked. Can you imagine what Nike would do if thousands upon thousands of counterfeit Nike products were sold in every population center? I suspect that Nike would demand that the government intervene and police the markets to ensure that counterfeit products would be rooted out of the markets.
The bottom line is that efficient retail transactions can only occur in a well-regulated retail marketplace. Like it or not, a well-regulated retail market requires government intervention. Without regulation of the products being sold, the prices being charged, and the profits being generated, the shopping experience becomes fraught with unpredictability and hopelessly time consuming. According to my relatives, the retail market is not the only one subject to the vagaries of prejudice and lack of regulation. The housing market is similar as are practically any commercial transaction one can think of that does not occur at the highest end of any market.
So how have we achieved predictability and efficiency in our markets? The simple answer is through taxation and regulation. The sales tax is a simple mechanism for generating income necessary to regulate retail markets. The sales tax provides a uniform mechanism for collecting both funds and data regarding the operation of markets. When sellers are required to record transactions and recover a sales tax based on the actual sale of a product, the net effect is to streamline the process. While a large retailer could operate without fixed prices and still charge sales taxes, the administrative inefficiency would be crushing. It is much easier to have a fixed price and a cash register system that automatically applies the sales tax to both the receipt and the data collection mechanisms in place. I have stood in line at Target and witnessed customers upset simply because the line was not moving fast enough. Can you imagine the rage that would occur if every person who went through the line could dicker about the price?
Regulation also ensures fairness. In a regulated commercial market, it is much easier to ensure that the products being sold are not counterfeit. Surely counterfeit products still make their way through the retail market in the U.S. but the incidence has to be much lower than the incidence of counterfeit products in an unregulated market like the ones I encountered in Thailand and Laos. The only way to ensure the efficiency of markets is through government regulation. If anyone doubts the truth of this, consider the crash of the U.S. housing market. The housing market crashed largely because of the unregulated derivatives and credit default obligation markets.
If we really want smaller government, we can certainly have it; just be prepared for our markets to become less efficient, less predictable, and less profitable. If we want robust markets, we need a reasonable amount of government regulation to ensure transparency, fairness, and predictability.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Limits of Tolerance
Mona Eltahawy has a powerful article on misogyny in Arab countries and posits that no argument can justify the violence and subjugation of women in Arab countries. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/why_do_they_hate_us
I agree with Ms. Eltahawy's position. As a general philosophical matter, human conduct must be judged pragmatically. Hence, Ms. Eltahawy can argue persuasively that such relativistic concepts as cultural tradition do not justify violence against women. If we dispense with the notion that abhorrent behavior can be excused based on tradition or history or any other such justification based on custom, we can set practical limits on ethical behavior. Without the move to judge behavior pragmatically, we are left to shrug our shoulders and simply concede that while the behavior is abhorrent to us it is within the ethical parameters of the culture in which it arises; therefore, we cannot wholly condemn the behavior. Ms. Eltahawy demonstrates that ethical behavior may operate on a continuum, but that some behavior can be judged unethical regardless of the cultural milieu from which the behavior arises.
Ms. Eltahawy identifies several unethical behaviors in how Arab countries treat women. Some Arab countries deny women suffrage. If we accept the premise that all persons are equal under the law, regardless of gender, then denying women the right to vote is unethical regardless of the tradition or religious text supporting the denial. Quite simply, no justification of denying suffrage to adult women can render the decision ethical. In addition, treating the relationship of men and women to sexuality differently is unethical. Obviously men and women relate to sexuality differently given the fact that men and women are in fact separate genders. Nevertheless, the requirement that women cover themselves without a concomitant requirement for males can have no ethical basis. Similarly, the requirement that a man must accompany an adult woman in public but the lack of a reciprocal requirement can have no ethical basis. If we accept the premise that an adult female possesses the same rights of self-determination that an adult male possesses, then any cultural tradition that limits a woman's rights of self-determination without a reciprocal limitation on males is unethical.
Ms. Eltahawy's piece reaches its most heartbreaking when addressing physical violence against women and the politico-legal complicity in that violence. Ms. Eltahawy was herself groped by a fellow protester during the Tahrir Square demonstrations, a fact so odious as to defy comprehension. In a dangerous and fever-pitched confrontation with the martial forces of an authoritarian regime, a protester could be so easily distracted by the mere presence of a woman that he would take the opportunity to cop a feel? Frankly, this is sad comment on the infantilization of men in misogynistic societies. If women are stylized as virgin/whore figures, then men are stylized as out-of-control children. The message to men is that they cannot control themselves in their relations to women and therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions. What mature man gropes a woman he does not know? That such an experience would be so titillating that one would act on it demonstrates the infantile quality of the man raised in a misogynistic society. Imagine the excitement that the explosion of self-determination inspired in the protesters and then the despair at knowing even here someone manages to treat you as a voiceless object, as a mere thing to be touched?
The groping incident is just the tip of the iceberg, though. The Egyptian police arrested Ms. Eltahawy during the demonstrations and battered her. While in custody, the Egyptian police sexually assaulted her (on a public street) and broke one of her arms and one of her hands. The police remain unpunished. Similar horror stories abound. In 2002 15 Saudi girls died in a fire because the "morality police" would not allow them to flee the building because they were not covered. Nothing happened after this incident. Ms. Eltahawy discusses genital mutilation and minors coerced into marriage who die in childbirth. The list is disgusting and shocking.
Such violence and the legal and administrative apparatus that allows the perpetrators to go unpunished have no ethical justification. There is simply no circumstances in which rape can be legitimated. There is no circumstance where cultural norms regarding modesty can be used to justify forcing girls to die in a fire. There is no tradition that can claim moral legitimacy that physically maims and injures a girl's genitals. The only way to judge these acts is against the backdrop of pragmatic morality: are these acts necessary? If not, do the acts cause harm? If the answer is yes, no argument can turn these acts into ethical ones. Ms. Eltahawy should be commended for reminding us that some things in the world cannot be justified under any circumstances. Misogyny is one such thing.
I agree with Ms. Eltahawy's position. As a general philosophical matter, human conduct must be judged pragmatically. Hence, Ms. Eltahawy can argue persuasively that such relativistic concepts as cultural tradition do not justify violence against women. If we dispense with the notion that abhorrent behavior can be excused based on tradition or history or any other such justification based on custom, we can set practical limits on ethical behavior. Without the move to judge behavior pragmatically, we are left to shrug our shoulders and simply concede that while the behavior is abhorrent to us it is within the ethical parameters of the culture in which it arises; therefore, we cannot wholly condemn the behavior. Ms. Eltahawy demonstrates that ethical behavior may operate on a continuum, but that some behavior can be judged unethical regardless of the cultural milieu from which the behavior arises.
Ms. Eltahawy identifies several unethical behaviors in how Arab countries treat women. Some Arab countries deny women suffrage. If we accept the premise that all persons are equal under the law, regardless of gender, then denying women the right to vote is unethical regardless of the tradition or religious text supporting the denial. Quite simply, no justification of denying suffrage to adult women can render the decision ethical. In addition, treating the relationship of men and women to sexuality differently is unethical. Obviously men and women relate to sexuality differently given the fact that men and women are in fact separate genders. Nevertheless, the requirement that women cover themselves without a concomitant requirement for males can have no ethical basis. Similarly, the requirement that a man must accompany an adult woman in public but the lack of a reciprocal requirement can have no ethical basis. If we accept the premise that an adult female possesses the same rights of self-determination that an adult male possesses, then any cultural tradition that limits a woman's rights of self-determination without a reciprocal limitation on males is unethical.
Ms. Eltahawy's piece reaches its most heartbreaking when addressing physical violence against women and the politico-legal complicity in that violence. Ms. Eltahawy was herself groped by a fellow protester during the Tahrir Square demonstrations, a fact so odious as to defy comprehension. In a dangerous and fever-pitched confrontation with the martial forces of an authoritarian regime, a protester could be so easily distracted by the mere presence of a woman that he would take the opportunity to cop a feel? Frankly, this is sad comment on the infantilization of men in misogynistic societies. If women are stylized as virgin/whore figures, then men are stylized as out-of-control children. The message to men is that they cannot control themselves in their relations to women and therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions. What mature man gropes a woman he does not know? That such an experience would be so titillating that one would act on it demonstrates the infantile quality of the man raised in a misogynistic society. Imagine the excitement that the explosion of self-determination inspired in the protesters and then the despair at knowing even here someone manages to treat you as a voiceless object, as a mere thing to be touched?
The groping incident is just the tip of the iceberg, though. The Egyptian police arrested Ms. Eltahawy during the demonstrations and battered her. While in custody, the Egyptian police sexually assaulted her (on a public street) and broke one of her arms and one of her hands. The police remain unpunished. Similar horror stories abound. In 2002 15 Saudi girls died in a fire because the "morality police" would not allow them to flee the building because they were not covered. Nothing happened after this incident. Ms. Eltahawy discusses genital mutilation and minors coerced into marriage who die in childbirth. The list is disgusting and shocking.
Such violence and the legal and administrative apparatus that allows the perpetrators to go unpunished have no ethical justification. There is simply no circumstances in which rape can be legitimated. There is no circumstance where cultural norms regarding modesty can be used to justify forcing girls to die in a fire. There is no tradition that can claim moral legitimacy that physically maims and injures a girl's genitals. The only way to judge these acts is against the backdrop of pragmatic morality: are these acts necessary? If not, do the acts cause harm? If the answer is yes, no argument can turn these acts into ethical ones. Ms. Eltahawy should be commended for reminding us that some things in the world cannot be justified under any circumstances. Misogyny is one such thing.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Dworkin on the Affordable Care Act Mandate
Ronald Dworkin has a good piece at the New York Review of Books on why the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/why-mandate-constitutional-real-argument/
He does two things well. First, he reminds us that entitlements are no such thing but are in fact forms of social insurance in which risk of social harm is spread across the population to minimize the harm to individuals and small groups. We use social insurance to spread risk because typically harm does not occur to a majority of individuals at the same time, despite the fact that the harm is likely to occur to a majority of individuals over time. Hence, the need to enact social insurance programs that enlist the majority who are not presently harmed because we understand that those being harmed will never possess the political clout (i.e. they will not have the votes) to elect sympathetic legislators except at extraordinary moments in time. This was true of the post-Civil War amendments (13-15), the FDA, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and myriad other important social insurance or regulatory programs. The same is true today with the Affordable Care Act and Dworkin explains the social insurance act well and concisely.
Second, Dworkin provides a legal analysis accessible to any non-lawyer of moderate intelligence that demonstrates the constitutionality of the mandate. This forms the bulk of his opinion and is worth the read. I enjoyed his description of the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as ultraconservative. I find the description apt. William Rehnquist was conservative. Warren Burger was conservative. Sandra Day O'Connor was conservative. The gang of four are nothing like conservative justices. The conservatives were frustrating because of their insistence on (the conservative principles) of slow, incremental change and respect for precedent. If only we could have those salad days back instead of the current ethos that removes the constitution from context and presumes that four persons living in 2012 can somehow divine the precise thoughts of men who died about 200 years ago. I also find it amusing that this faction adopts the term "strict constructionist" to describe their method of constitutional interpretation when the very fact that a case is before them suggests more than one reasonable interpretation exists. Perhaps I should not be surprised. The legal profession is not known for self-deprecation and humility. I do, however, want to find the talisman that allows these four old men in black robes to enter the minds of long dead men and divine the obvious and only meaning of an often ambiguous and vague document.
He does two things well. First, he reminds us that entitlements are no such thing but are in fact forms of social insurance in which risk of social harm is spread across the population to minimize the harm to individuals and small groups. We use social insurance to spread risk because typically harm does not occur to a majority of individuals at the same time, despite the fact that the harm is likely to occur to a majority of individuals over time. Hence, the need to enact social insurance programs that enlist the majority who are not presently harmed because we understand that those being harmed will never possess the political clout (i.e. they will not have the votes) to elect sympathetic legislators except at extraordinary moments in time. This was true of the post-Civil War amendments (13-15), the FDA, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and myriad other important social insurance or regulatory programs. The same is true today with the Affordable Care Act and Dworkin explains the social insurance act well and concisely.
Second, Dworkin provides a legal analysis accessible to any non-lawyer of moderate intelligence that demonstrates the constitutionality of the mandate. This forms the bulk of his opinion and is worth the read. I enjoyed his description of the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as ultraconservative. I find the description apt. William Rehnquist was conservative. Warren Burger was conservative. Sandra Day O'Connor was conservative. The gang of four are nothing like conservative justices. The conservatives were frustrating because of their insistence on (the conservative principles) of slow, incremental change and respect for precedent. If only we could have those salad days back instead of the current ethos that removes the constitution from context and presumes that four persons living in 2012 can somehow divine the precise thoughts of men who died about 200 years ago. I also find it amusing that this faction adopts the term "strict constructionist" to describe their method of constitutional interpretation when the very fact that a case is before them suggests more than one reasonable interpretation exists. Perhaps I should not be surprised. The legal profession is not known for self-deprecation and humility. I do, however, want to find the talisman that allows these four old men in black robes to enter the minds of long dead men and divine the obvious and only meaning of an often ambiguous and vague document.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Armed America
Jill Lepore has a good piece in the New Yorker on violence, gun rights, and the second amendment.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore The best line from the piece is:
"When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left."
I have some qualms with the article. Namely, that Lepore touches on so many aspects of the history of guns in American life that the article at times feels a bit disconnected. Nevertheless, Lepore does well to demonstrate that the NRA's position on gun control has more to do with conservative politics than firearm ownership. She also does well to point out the silliness of the NRA position that Barack Obama will do anything to infringe on gun ownership rights. Finally, one cannot help but wonder how we got to the point where a private citizen could willfully initiate a confrontation with another private citizen in a public place and claim a perfect defense to criminal liability.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore The best line from the piece is:
"When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left."
I have some qualms with the article. Namely, that Lepore touches on so many aspects of the history of guns in American life that the article at times feels a bit disconnected. Nevertheless, Lepore does well to demonstrate that the NRA's position on gun control has more to do with conservative politics than firearm ownership. She also does well to point out the silliness of the NRA position that Barack Obama will do anything to infringe on gun ownership rights. Finally, one cannot help but wonder how we got to the point where a private citizen could willfully initiate a confrontation with another private citizen in a public place and claim a perfect defense to criminal liability.
What strikes me most about gun rights advocates is not the idea that one ought to be able to own a firearm but the notion that gun ownership is somehow necessary. Lepore's formulation above conveys the absurdity of the matter well. In my own thoughts, I consider the argument that gun ownership is necessary essentially admits that we are not adults. The idea of life in a society so fragile that the only mechanism of self-preservation is the threat of violence from every individual is so fraught with insecurity as to be unimaginable. The point of civil society is civility, a common understanding of the basic rights and rules of interaction in the public and private spheres so that we are able to function without constant suspicion and fear. Civil society is supposed to elevate us beyond the insecurity of mere survival so that we can, as a society, flourish in ways pre-civil societies cannot. The gun rights advocates turn this on its head and tell us that it is in fact better if we revert to an age when the very act of survival is precarious, anxious, and fearful. Doesn't anyone else think this is insane?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Myth of Black on Black Violence
Edward Wykoff Williams has a good piece in The Root today exposing the problems with the notion of "black on black" violence. http://www.theroot.com/views/why-don-t-we-talk-about-white-white-crime As Williams notes, most crime in all ethnic groups is committed by members of the same ethnic groups yet we do not speak of a white on white violence problem. In addition, Williams does an outstanding job of bringing out the simple fact that the idea of "black on black" violence has led to greater policing in black neighborhoods which, predictably, leads to greater arrests of black persons and increased entanglement with the criminal justice system. Finally, Williams cites the pioneering work of Professor Michelle Alexander on the profoundly disturbing impact disparate enforcement of the law has had on the black community. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Professor Alexander's book should be required reading for every American, but especially for those who do not believe racism is alive and well in America today.
The rate at which persons of one ethnic group commit crimes against persons of the same ethnic group is evidence that the melting pot metaphor does not hold. Our nation and our cities are divided places. The lines along which we divide are predictable, but sad: race, ethnicity, poverty, wealth, etc. Obviously this is nothing new, but the Williams piece and the literature he cites bring home the point of how hopelessly divided our society is in a novel manner. Rhetoric of freedom and equality aside (which, if you think about it for a moment, are actually opposing ideas), we remain a balkanized or ghettoized society. We should view pronouncments about any single ethnic group with suspicion to discern hidden motives and flawed assumptions and we should view pronouncements about the black community with an even more critical eye given the ongoing institutionalized disparate treatment of African Americans.
The rate at which persons of one ethnic group commit crimes against persons of the same ethnic group is evidence that the melting pot metaphor does not hold. Our nation and our cities are divided places. The lines along which we divide are predictable, but sad: race, ethnicity, poverty, wealth, etc. Obviously this is nothing new, but the Williams piece and the literature he cites bring home the point of how hopelessly divided our society is in a novel manner. Rhetoric of freedom and equality aside (which, if you think about it for a moment, are actually opposing ideas), we remain a balkanized or ghettoized society. We should view pronouncments about any single ethnic group with suspicion to discern hidden motives and flawed assumptions and we should view pronouncements about the black community with an even more critical eye given the ongoing institutionalized disparate treatment of African Americans.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Adrienne Rich
The poet Adrienne Rich passed away. The NY Times has an excellent obituary: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/books/adrienne-rich-feminist-poet-and-author-dies-at-82.html?_r=1&hpw#
I encountered her in a class that covered poets who became prominent in the 1960's and 70's. "Diving into the Wreck" is a great, canonical poem. That Ms. Rich identified herself as a Jewish lesbian means everything and nothing. The poem is simply superlative, but knowing a bit about Ms. Rich enhances the poem's richness and depth. I encourage anyone who has not read Ms. Rich to pick up an anthology such as a The Fact of a Door Frame.
The feeling Ms. Rich's poetry gave rise to is similar to the one I experienced when it was clear that Barack Obama had won the 2008 election. In the moment of apprehension, I became aware that an entire population now had what I have had and have always taken for granted. In the case of Barack Obama, it is the silly but important notion American boys have that, "everyone can be President." Now, every African American boy can share in this notion. In the case of Adrienne Rich, I became aware that an entire population of writers could write about the world as they encountered and experienced it. I had always taken that for granted. The effect of Ms. Rich's poetry opened my eyes and gave me insights into the risk that serious writing entails. This made me a more careful and better reader. Above all, however, Ms. Rich wrote brilliantly and enriches the experience of every English-speaking reader who encounters her.
I encountered her in a class that covered poets who became prominent in the 1960's and 70's. "Diving into the Wreck" is a great, canonical poem. That Ms. Rich identified herself as a Jewish lesbian means everything and nothing. The poem is simply superlative, but knowing a bit about Ms. Rich enhances the poem's richness and depth. I encourage anyone who has not read Ms. Rich to pick up an anthology such as a The Fact of a Door Frame.
The feeling Ms. Rich's poetry gave rise to is similar to the one I experienced when it was clear that Barack Obama had won the 2008 election. In the moment of apprehension, I became aware that an entire population now had what I have had and have always taken for granted. In the case of Barack Obama, it is the silly but important notion American boys have that, "everyone can be President." Now, every African American boy can share in this notion. In the case of Adrienne Rich, I became aware that an entire population of writers could write about the world as they encountered and experienced it. I had always taken that for granted. The effect of Ms. Rich's poetry opened my eyes and gave me insights into the risk that serious writing entails. This made me a more careful and better reader. Above all, however, Ms. Rich wrote brilliantly and enriches the experience of every English-speaking reader who encounters her.
Friday, March 9, 2012
The Ullrich Plan (minus EPO)
1. Spend all winter in an Ibiza-esque food and beer orgy.
2. Look in the mirror sometime in mid-February. Feel shameful. Drink two beers. Resume self-neglect.
3. Note the calendar turning into March. Go to WCA website to check out race schedule. Have panic attack.
4. Subject body to exorbitant levels of punishment given predictable challenges deconditioning and weight gain pose.
5. Dream of TOAD glory.
Have fun rolling around Madison this weekend. I'll be killing myself in beer town.
2. Look in the mirror sometime in mid-February. Feel shameful. Drink two beers. Resume self-neglect.
3. Note the calendar turning into March. Go to WCA website to check out race schedule. Have panic attack.
4. Subject body to exorbitant levels of punishment given predictable challenges deconditioning and weight gain pose.
5. Dream of TOAD glory.
Have fun rolling around Madison this weekend. I'll be killing myself in beer town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)